/lit/ - Literature

a means of expression of the deep self, consciously designed with skill and an effect on the receiver in mind; a work abstracted from elements existing in the world as experienced by the artist into a new whole, communicating the mind and experience of the author and his history; a record of the act of creation of the author; often at least partially intended to entertain

It seems to me that both "what is" and "what ought to be" are mysterious, but the latter is more so. Consider

> X ought to be

We can ask why.

> Because X is an instance of X_1, and we ought to do X_1

We can ask why we ought to do X_1.

> Because X_1 is an instance of X_2, and we ought to do X_2.

We can continue asking the why question, but eventually we reach a point where he says

> You're just supposed to do X_n! Isn't it obvious!

All deductive branches of knowledge must start somewhere, from axioms. But consider

> For every two distinct points there is a line that goes through both.

The nihilist (which, I suppose, I am) points to this and says

> Do you see how obvious this is? Do you see how it is incapable of being honestly doubted? Well, when it comes to ethical "axioms", none of them are as obvious as this! They just aren't that obvious, and so the whole of ethics is built upon, well, nothing! It's built on nothing! It's built on a shady, unstable foundation.

Anyways, I'd love if someone could criticize this so that I can strength my ideas.

that which nothing greater can be thought